You can use the terms "and" & "or" in your search; "or" phrases are resolved
first, then the "and" phrases. For example, searching for "black hole and
galaxy or universe" will find articles that have the phrase "black hole" in them
and also have either "galaxy" or "universe" in them. Please note that other
search syntax like quote marks, hyphens, etc. are not currently supported.

When you view web pages with matches to your search, the terms you searched for will be highlighted in yellow.

If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

What an excellent couple of months it’s been for the science blogs. It seems like every few weeks we are being treated to another shiny new pebble, to borrow Newton’s analogy, from the endless beach of nature. Who would have thought the count of stars in the observable universe would plausibly be recalculated at a staggering 300 sextillion? Or that those stars found to be so much more common—red dwarves—would be the ones typically old enough to harbor life, opening the possibility of “trillions of earths” overhead? Or that the existence of alien species would finally be confirmed . . . ?

Oops.

Looks like some of those pebbles only appear to be new. On closer inspection they seem more familiar, and less shiny. Thus with a particular pebble that fell from the sky over what is now France and which, according to a much reported and blogged-about release this month, contains fossil evidence of alien bacteria.

Now, I try to keep a skeptical mind. (Not a cynical one: skeptical in the noble sense of the word, meaning an attitude that matches belief to evidence.) You say you found alien life? That’s fantastic. What’s your data?

And: Is it compelling? And, if so: Is it compelling enough to warrant so extreme an interpretation?

In this case, my money says no.

There were some warning signs from the start: Why did FOX News, hardly a beacon of scientific credibility, break this story? What exactly is The Journal of Cosmology, anyway? (Were you aware of this non-print journal before this week? Chime in.) As science sites go, the Journal has a certain . . . improvisational feel to it, let’s say. And it also seems to have an agenda—though not exactly a political one—in promoting the notion of Panspermia. Word is the site is also about to go under, and could really use a big, booming news release to shore up its funds and secure a buyer.

All of which is irrelevant to the truth or falsity of the report, of course; I’ve blogged before about the importance of avoiding logical fallacies when examining extraordinary claims. Nor, for that matter, is the fact that this article was submitted by NASA scientist Richard Hoover of the Marshall Space Flight Center in itself material. NASA people can be as goofy as anyone else. All that matters is: Does Hoover have the goods?

If these squiggly things that appear under the SEM are indeed alien fossils, then they are alien fossils, no matter where the story broke. (Gary Hart really was running around with Fawn Hall, regardless of the fact that the National Enquirer made the catch.) So if the humble Journal of Cosmology has the prize discovery of the century in its hands, more power to them.

But we remember the arsenic-eaters, and how that turned out. And, of course, we remember the 1996 claim of Martian fossils. And we remember cold fusion. And so on.

Within just a few days the initial excitement over this report passed quickly into incredulity, and even hostility, among many in the blogosphere. The sapid folks over at Pharyngula put it this way:

“[This] isn’t a real science journal at all, but is the ginned-up website of a small group of crank academics obsessed with the idea of Hoyle and Wickramasinghe that life originated in outer space and simply rained down on Earth.”

To say nothing of the succinct: “[t]his work is garbage.”

Ouch.

By coincidence, I spoke with Chandra Wickramasinghe (by email) a few years back when I was researching an article on Exogenesis. Which, I hasten to add, is perfectly plausible as a conjecture; though Hoyle et. al. were unable to get such notions into mainstream science, this isn’t crackpot stuff. We may still discover that the reason life popped up on Earth with such bizarre alacrity after the bombardment period ended is that it had been much more slowly evolving on a wet Mars well ahead of time.

(“Exogenesis” is a humbler supposition than Panspermia, merely positing that life on Earth got its initial start somewhere else. Panspermia posits that life travels, by various mechanisms, not only from planet to planet but even from star to star.)

Nevertheless, I remember that whenever I mentioned Wickramasinghe’s name in particular I was greeted by a polite raising of eyebrows. I wasn’t sure why, but I got the clear signal from folks in the Astrobio community that here I was venturing into “crank” territory. I have to say my experience in briefly communicating with Wickramasinghe, and others, at the Cardiff Centre for Astrobiology did not support this harsh read: these were rational, polite, and even-keeled people. Of course, we never discussed the more speculative elements of their enthusiasm: Do viruses come from space? Is SARS extraterrestrial? Are interstellar clouds made of E. coli, and is space more akin to a Petri dish than a lifeless vacuum? Looking back on it, this kind of conjecture was surely what was lifting the lids of my fellow reporters.

Still, the proof is in the carbonaceous chondrite. If these meteorite fragments are somehow confirmed to be a treasure-trove of E.T. fossils, uncontaminated and correctly analyzed, well . . . then Newton’s ocean of truth just gave up one of its shiniest trinkets. Wouldn’t it be amazing!

We’ll see. But I suspect that particular gem remains somewhere farther along the beach.

Super this article, the astrobiology is fascinating and the secrets of this universal sphere still more fascinating.You imagine at this momment the lifes and creations in our universe, it's incredible that at this present, it exists so many creations on so many planets....it's wonderful,at this present they think, they dream, they live, they evolve, they create, they improve, they probably makes errors also, they communicate, they move, the eat, they reproduce themselves.....they continue also the road of harmonization and spherization.Hope they do not make the same errors than us.They have eyes, a brain, hands,.....brothers of our universal sphere.The future is incredible when the interactions shall be optimized in fact.We rae still young at the universal scale.

Dear TH , always the same problem with Latex, even my page of FQXi disappears it's not possible that , what was the other programm please?

Me also I dlike write my equations easily.What is this thing , bizare ,all disappears I can't even go to the home page of latex project,what is this circus?My computer becomes bizare and irrational.An it is not a problem of pc and its memmory Tom really.

I am at a loss as to what to tell you, Steve, except to buy a Mac. :-)

The other program I mentioned (the one I use) is MathType, which only works if you have Microsoft Office installed on your computer. It's from DesignScience; I think I paid about a hundred $US. Maybe 75 Euro?

Obviously, the only way for any researcher to prove such structures and their associated chemical markers are biological in origin is to show that no other chemical or physical processes could have prduced the structure as a byproduct. Lots of similar sructures can be produced by different processes.

Since we lack detailed information about the physical and chemical processes that took place in the formation of the material and we have no way of knowing what environment the sample had found itself in over billions of years, you would be hard-pressed to draw conclusions. It is easier to disprove the hypothesis than prove it as you would only need to find some chemical marker or structure that rules it out as being a product of any known biological structure or process.

The best we can say is it is an interesting find worth extra study but we can't legitimately draw any conclusions.

I would like to be able to read your articles and have scientific faith in them. But, you continue to put your personal, unscientific, biases into them. I followed the links provided. I see little importance to this article. It is the later confirmation or disproof that matters. I look forward to articles that deal with scientific, your field of expertise, 'meat'.

Whatever units of measurement that can be used to develop a useful code in order that we may more easily communicate our measurements. For example the scale to measure temperature is merely a code. It is not temperature. Temperature is a physical occurrance taking place in some material that is in thermal equilibrium. We transfer one kind of effect, temperature, to another kind of effect that usefully mimics the changes in temperature. The new effect may be a rise in a column of mercury. The level we read for the mercury is not temperature. However, its useful to substitute for temperature because we can easily establish a code in order that we may more easily communicate the condition of the effect we are measuring. That code is called a scale. The scale is not natural. Natural is not arbitrary. Natural exhibits laws and principles for all effects in the universe.

Well if we restrict science to refer only to reality then your definition is not a definition of science. Your theory always requires including a cause. We do not know what cause is. Theorists tend to make up for lack of knowledge about cause by sometimes breaking it up into parts and giving those parts names. The names are stand-ins for lack of knowledge. So the theory is not natural. It is analogous to the mercury tube. It mimics reality.

Science is inductive. Scienists are not philosophers and their job is not to engage in metaphysical speculation. A scientist does not start with a set of axioms and arrive at a conclusion through rational deduction. Theories begin and end with empiricial observations, not deductive proofs.

Theories are designed to fit patterns in empirical evidence. Those patterns are always patterns of effects. Each effect follows other effects. It can be useful to refer to one effect as the cause of another effect. However, the second effect is usually a result of the same theoretically fundamental cause as is the first effect. Cause remains unknown. Theories are useful. They contain reality and substitutes for reality. Most importantly they are designed to micmic reality to the best of our abilities. So, the degree to which they continue to agree with empirical evidence is a measure of how well they have been designed to mimic reality. All the while cause remains unknown, and, everywhere that cause appears in theories it always represents lack of knowledge.

Therefore, properties such as electric charge are theory while the motions of the particles are reality. My point is that those theoretically parsed up pieces of cause are not real. While we probably will never know original cause, we can recognize its existence in our equations by giving it a name. Thereafter, all further theoretical development must use only that one cause. The reward is that we will have achieved a fundamentally unified theory by which we may describe this unified universe. I differentiate fundamental unity from the contortionist type efforts to force unnatural unity onto theory as an afterthought. I used the word unnatural, because correct theory would not require unity to be forced upon. Correct theory would begin with unity and exhibit that unity throughout its full development. By the way, scientists could avoid many problems if they studied metaphysics before they began to engage in their theoretical speculations.

"Are you saying the philosophy of science must always be conducted by non scientists? Wouldn't that exclusion of scientists be counterproductive?"

Not at all. We must remmeber, however, that the Philosophy of Science is not Science. We should be careful of letting the conclusion we draw from one influence the other.

Phisiloopshy and Science rely on two totally different modes of arriving at conclusions. These methods may have elements in common(i.e. rational discourse) but they are often at odds. For a scientist, it does not matter if the premises follow deductively from a set of axioms. A Philosopher can conclude if A then B. However, if we observe If A then C, then this . Not a scientiically valid conclusion about the world. It doesn't matter how well. Always be the litmus test.

Unlike Philosophy, Science is not axiomatic. As I stated earlier, Science is empiricial. Science relies on inductive inferences, not dedeuctive proofs.

The conclusion that the Sun will rise tomorrow was not gained through a deductive proof. Nor can this conclusion be sustained with a deductive proof. This conclusion was first drawn from the observation that this pattern of behavior of objects in the physical world repeates itself again and again. We inductively infer that this pattern will continue to repeat itself as we have no empirical observation or reason to believe it won't.

I cannot deductively prove the laws of gravitation will continue to work tomorrow and the sun will rise. In order for anyone to prove the sun will not rise tomorrow and the laws of gravitation can cease to operate, we must observe it to happen. We don't observe this happen, therfore we can inductivley conclude that the sun will rise tomorrow.

I need to amend something I said above. I tend to forget to distiguish between metaphysics as it was and today's damaged goods that result from parsing metaphysics into separate pieces. Metaphysics must be one just as physics must have one cause.

The difficulty is that nothing is really conclusive. The Martian meteorite connection with life has turned out to be very unlikely. The forms which looked like bacterial type of cells are now known to be formed by more chemical means by heating hydrocarbons. Yet, it is interesting that hydrocarbons exist on Mars. Though there is no evidence of actual life.

The panspermia idea is of course somewhat silly. It does not really solve the problem of how self-organizing organic chemistry produced life. All panspermia does is to shove the problem to somewhere else. It really solves nothing, and frankly I think it is very unlikely that biology on this planet dropped out of the sky from somewhere else.

"It can be useful to refer to one effect as the cause of another effect. However, the second effect is usually a result of the same theoretically fundamental cause as is the first effect. Cause remains unknown"

Causality is a nasty subject. It was Bertrand Russell who opined that we should completely remove the word casualty from the discussion of natural phenomenon, as it leads to ambiguity.

To explain what this means, consider this example.

I came home from a heavy workout at the gym this afternoon and was thirsty and quite famished. When I got home, I poured a glass of milk.

Someone might conclude that the milk disappeared from the bottle because I was thirsty. However, had I had not gone to the gym at the time I did, I would probably not have poured a glass of milk at 2PM on Saturday March 12th.

If an engagement this afternoon had not been canceled, I would not have gone to the gym at noon on March 12th. And so on and so forth....In considering causality of the event of pouring a glass of milk at 2PM, we must also include the dropped engagement.

Non-events can also be included in the causal chain. I made it to the gym and back home because I did not get hit by a car on the way to or from the gym. If such an event had occurred, I would not have made it home to be a participant in the event which occurred at 2PM on march 11.

A synchronous chain of events in time and space led to the event of milk disappearing from the bottle at 2PM on Saturday March 12th at the location of my refrigerator. You cannot assign any fundamental cause to the event because there is no fundamental cause. An event in time and space occurred.

The same reasoning can be applied to any event which occurs in nature. We can speak of fundamental principles of behavior but not of fundamental causes. An electron moving in a magnetic field will alter it's trajectory due to known fundamental principles that we have come to observe and formulate regarding the behavior of electromagnetic phenomenon. However, we can never state that the fundamental cause for the event was the laws of electromagnetism as the history of the electron must also include a near infinite number of prior spacetime events. The stochastic nature of the processes implicit in Quantum Mechanics makes causality even more murky.

Each event can be understood by appealing to fundamental principals, but no fundamental(i.e. first cause) cause can ever be assigned to an event.

Tom, Fundamentally there is no difference. Life did somehow emerge by the principles of chemistry. I suspect there will comes a generalization of Darwin’s principle which digs into chemical complexity and evolution that will guide us somewhat in understanding the origin of life. Maybe evidence exists on Mars for pre-biotic chemistry. I don’t think it likely this occurred on Mars and got transferred here, but more likely in the early history of Earth and Mars there were parallel developments.

I agree. I devoted a couple of paragraphs to the subject in my 1998 essay linked earlier. Thing is, if one begins with a postulate that there is somewhere else, or something else, besides the universe, the gates are open to any philosophy and supernatural explanation that one can imagine.

Proven abiogenesis will not invalidate Darwinian evolution, whose simplest unit is organic; it will, however, settle the question of the material origin of organic life, and obviate the boundary between "life" and "non-life."

"Proven abiogenesis will not invalidate Darwinian evolution, whose simplest unit is organic; it will, however, settle the question of the material origin of organic life, and obviate the boundary between "life" and "non-life.""

There is no boundary between 'life' and 'non-life' that has not been artificially erected by mechanical theory. Correct your theory so that it can predict and expalin life and intelligence. Stay with mechanical theory and you will always be forced to list effects and suggest that that listing proves that your mistaken theory is correct. In other words, you begin with mechanical fundamentals. They go nowhere when it comes to life and intelligence. But, obviously the universe did move from fundamental properties into complex life and intelligence. A list of effects will never prove mechanical theory. The fact that those effects exist does not validate the incorrectly defined fundamental properties. The universe is not yet properly represented by physics theory.

Physics theory remains a way to use patterns in changes of velocity to extrapolate future changes in velocity. Mechanical theory, in general, is stuck at the low and artificial level of a mechanical ideology that has taken hold of science and restricts its progress. Something is appealing, for non scientific reasons, for this ideology and that something appears to be a major part of protecting this roadblock to understanding. What do you think it is. Perhaps your misuse of the word 'supernatural' gives a clue. Afterall, it is obvious that life and intelligence are natural. It is not at all obvious that mechanical theory is natural.

Facts do not originate in ideology nor in theory -- evolution, e.g., is an observed phenomenon, not a theory. The theory is that of common ancestry, which explains the fact of evolution. Likewise, wave-particle duality is not a theory, but an observed phenomenon explained by the theory of quantum mechanics.

You are free to believe that theory doesn't explain facts. However, it's the only means we have. Otherwise, all beliefs are equally valid.

Your theory is that fundamentally mechanical properties can give rise to intelligent life. Your theory does not explain the facts. The facts are that particles of matter have risen up and become intelligent life. The theory should be explaining what there is about those particles of matter that make their journey possible.

No, James. I do not theorize that "fundamentally mechanical properties can give rise to intelligent life."

In the first place, there is no general theory of "intelligence" which would make such a notion coherent. In the second place, "life" has no universally agreed on definition. In the third place, the property of self organization, like evolution, is an empirical fact, not a theory.

The origin and development of intelligence cannot currently be explained. The observed steps in its development do not explain the means by which those steps occurred. For certain, the means cannot be dumbness.

There is no definition of life because it is currently inexplicable. The difficulty is that we should be able to trace the steps of life all the way down to the particles which form it. Instead there has been an arbitrary division made between matter and life. That division is due to the mechanical ideology and its physics theories.

Of course self-organization occurs. What does not occur is for dumbness to self-organize itself into intelligent life. The point is that the fundamental science of physics has been restricted by its mechanical theories. You cannot move from particles of matter defined solely as mechanical into an explanation of life. You do not get to claim the results for free as if your theories led to them. Self-organization is possible because every effect that will ever occur in this universe has existed potentially in the very particles from which we are made. Learn what those potential properties are and the self-organization of intelligent life will be explained.

Since intelligence is not a primary property of a self organized universe, it doesn't have to be explained in any other terms than evolutionary biology.

"Life" is only inexplicable _because_ we have no agreed upon definition.

And no, science does not and never has claimed that "intelligence comes from dumbness." If you want my take intelligence and rational decision making as an evolutionary benefit, read my essay. Rational creatures play with loaded dice.

"Since intelligence is not a primary property of a self organized universe, it doesn't have to be explained in any other terms than evolutionary biology."

There is no way that you justifiy this statement except by ideological stand.

""Life" is only inexplicable _because_ we have no agreed upon definition."

Life does not have an explanation because it is currently inexplicable.

"And no, science does not and never has claimed that "intelligence comes from dumbness." If you want my take intelligence and rational decision making as an evolutionary benefit, read my essay. Rational creatures play with loaded dice."

Evolutionary benefit has nothing to do with the development of life and intelligence except in its role of destroying design that has occurred for reasons that are not the result of its own effects. The designs that work to enhance successful survival had to have been previously provided for and previously existed in their potential form before any biological change can occur and result in meaningfulness and usefulness.

The properties put forward by theoretical physics are devoid of potential for intelligent life. Electric charge is dumb. So are the other fundamental forces. They are dumb because they are interpreted only in the sense of causing changes of velocity.

I am going to ignore the things you keep repeating ad innfinitum, because they have been adequately answered time and again, with fact, theory and reference.

I'll just ask you to explain how this statement differs from any other religious belief about creation (and is thus not science, by any standard): "The designs that work to enhance successful survival had to have been previously provided for and previously existed in their potential form before any biological change can occur and result in meaningfulness and usefulness."

Every effect that occurs as a result of the origin of the universe has to be due to the propertries that have existed from its beginning. I do not allow for latter miracles to be snuck in either in favor of religious beliefs or in fear of religious beliefs. I have read your essay a couple of times weeks ago. Have you yet figured out how we discern meaning from the photon storm that crashes into us at the speed of light?

An informative useful answer. It matters what your opinion is. It helps to hear different opinions by experts and to have other experts comment on them. A conclusion might be 'We don't really know, but here is what we think.' It works for me. Thank you for your opinion.

"The same reasoning can be applied to any event which occurs in nature. We can speak of fundamental principles of behavior but not of fundamental causes. An electron moving in a magnetic field will alter it's trajectory due to known fundamental principles that we have come to observe and formulate regarding the behavior of electromagnetic phenomenon. ...

I don't think that analogies are helpful. The physical problem either can or cannot be described adequately on its own. Your example of the electron and the magnetic field demonstrates a problem with theoretical physics. While I concur that the electron is real because it causes effects, your use of the word magnetic field for its cause is a philosophical choice. It stems from acceptance of lack of fundamental unity and the mechanical ideology that has been so detrimental to science.

"...However, we can never state that the fundamental cause for the event was the laws of electromagnetism as the history of the electron must also include a near infinite number of prior spacetime events. The stochastic nature of the processes implicit in Quantum Mechanics makes causality even more murky."

Here you can help me out: Why a 'near infinite' number of prior spacetime events. Why not inifinite?

As per an earlier post, it has nothing to do with philosophy or deduction. A charged particle in the presence of a magnetic field will undergo acceleration. One does not need to know anything about the principles of electromagnetism to draw this conclusion. The conclusion is drawn from empirical observations. The laws of electromagnetism were ultimately derived from observations regarding the behavior of material bodies.

Observation:

Electric charges attract or repel each other. The magnitude of attraction or repulsion can be MEASURED and the numerical measurements fit nicely into a mathematical relationship among the measured variables. The mathematical relationship is found to have the same form as the inverse square law of gravitation.

Observation:

An electric current set up in a wire will cause the needle on a compass to act as if it were in the presence of a magnetic field. Two wires carrying current will attract one another as if they were magnets. Again, one can measure the magnitudes of the physical variables and form precise mathematical relations among the observables.

.

Observation:

Current is generated in a wire loop when it is placed in a magnetic field and upon undergoing translation. After further observations and measurements, one can conclude the the strength of the current depends on the orientation of the loop relative to the orientation of the magnetic field.

These are observed facts. Someone did not sit down one day and construct a proof that led to the laws of EM. There is no axiomatic necessity that the mathematical principles of EM must be what they are through some fundamental rational principle. This is the way it is because this is what we observe to be so.

The relationships among all of these observables eventually led to the realization that we are really dealing with one specific type of fundamental physical phenomenon -- electromagnetism. Maxwell's equations contain a precise mathematical blueprint that allows one to predict the classical behavior or EM phenomenon in the laboratory. Maxwell's Equations tell you how such things will behave when observed. The principles of EM are not some philosophical treatise on reality. The laws of EM accurately describe aspects of observed reality.

"A charged particle in the presence of a magnetic field will undergo acceleration. One does not need to know anything about the principles of electromagnetism to draw this conclusion. The conclusion is drawn from empirical observations. The laws of electromagnetism were ultimately derived from observations regarding the behavior of material bodies."

"A charged particle in the presence of a magnetic field will undergo acceleration. One does not need to know anything about the principles of electromagnetism to draw this conclusion. The conclusion is drawn from empirical observations. The laws of electromagnetism were ultimately derived from observations regarding the behavior of material bodies."

The laws of electromagnetism were invented from a combination of lack of knowledge about how to achieve fundamental unity and emprical observations. It was a matter of parsing cause. We don't know what cause is, and, we didn't know how to avoid disunity.

"Electric charges attract or repel each other. The magnitude of attraction or repulsion can be MEASURED and the numerical measurements fit nicely into a mathematical relationship among the measured variables. The mathematical relationship is found to have the same form as the inverse square law of gravitation."

Of course it can be measured and the numerical measurements will fit nicely into a mathematical relationshship. You can't fit your theory to empirical evidence on a piecemeal basis and then declare that that fit proves your piecemeal theory. The empirical evidence exists in spite of whether or not your theory exists.

"An electric current set up in a wire will cause the needle on a compass to act as if it were in the presence of a magnetic field. Two wires carrying current will attract one another as if they were magnets. Again, one can measure the magnitudes of the physical variables and form precise mathematical relations among the observables."

The effect you mention is observed. The cause is unknown. By the way, this is the correct way to define electric charge. On the other hand, electric charge is an invention. It is the magnitude of electric charge that represents an unexplained universal constant.

Etc.

"These are observed facts. Someone did not sit down one day and construct a proof that led to the laws of EM. There is no axiomatic necessity that the mathematical principles of EM must be what they are through some fundamental rational principle. This is the way it is because this is what we observe to be so."

The observed facts are the effects. You do not observe cause. You do not know what cause is. You only know the names of invented causes. Electromagnetic theory was fine so long as physics was in its infancy. Now it is time to rid ourselves of past guesses and seek to establish a fundamentally unified theory in which electromagnetic theory will be incorporated with significant changes concerning cause.

"The relationships among all of these observables eventually led to the realization that we are really dealing with one specific type of fundamental physical phenomenon -- electromagnetism. Maxwell's equations contain a precise mathematical blueprint that allows one to predict the classical behavior or EM phenomenon in the laboratory. Maxwell's Equations tell you how such things will behave when observed. The principles of EM are not some philosophical treatise on reality. The laws of EM accurately describe aspects of observed reality."

The realization was only that certain patterns of effects did not appear to fit with others, so, due to lack of understanding and to the need for communicating what was learned for use in practical problems, electromagnetic theory was invented. So far as Maxwell's equations are concerned, they included field theory because field theory is a substitute for saying "The cause cannot be shown." My essay in the first essay contest gave the corrections to Maxwell's equations.

I am starting to get the impression that you really do not understand the aim and intent of science. As I said before, Science is not Philosophy. A law or principle is not arrived at by who comes up with the most compelling argument. A scientist is convinced by empricial evidence, not deductive proofs.

Theories begin and end with observations. If it looks like a duck, acts like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's not a cow.

"I am starting to get the impression that you really do not understand the aim and intent of science."

I understand it allright. What is unacceptable is doctored up answers. By the way: Why 'near infinite' and not infinite?

"Theories begin and end with observations. If it looks like a duck, acts like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's not a cow."

My point is that your theories look like ducks, act like ducks, and quack like ducks. So, you have a string of ducks. It is time to rid ourselves of ducks and develop a fundamentally unified theory. Call it the one and only goose or gander.

We don't need a fundamentally unified theory to do science. You're missing the point entirely. A scientific theory is a utilitarian tool that is entirely subservient to, and derived from, empirical observations. A scientific theory is not an absolute truth.

"We don't need a fundamentally unified theory to do science. You're missing the point entirely. A scientific theory is a utilitarian tool that is entirely subservient to, and derived from, empirical observations. A scientific theory is not an absolute truth."

If you can explain the effects of the universe using one cause, name it whatever you wish, then, you will have a scientific truth. You still will not know the nature of the cause; however, you will have captured its essence with regard to its effects. I am not missing any point. You are missing answers. I presume that 'utilitarian tool' refers to the crux of the mechanical ideology.

Professional theory is useful for doing science because, it is fitted to patterns in empirical evidence. Yet, when someone does manage to unify parts of it such as Maxwell did, we learn important new science from it. That is an example of achieving something that points toward possible total fundamental unity. Each forward step in enveloping in fundamental unity what are otherwise disparate theoretical properties has the potential to reap important new science. The ultimate achievement of scientific knowledge, at least in so far as mechanical type effects are concerned, will be gained when there is one fundamentally unified physics theory.

Total fundamental unity is of value only to a select few. A fundametal unified physical theory will still be limited in its application. This theory would only provide a more abstract and fundamental forumulation of existing phenomenon.

This forumulation would NOT be a theory of everything, only a theory that relegates current expressions of physical laws to limiting apprxoimations of this more fundamental formulation.

A more fundamental theory that unifies all interactions would not be able to provide any theoretical platform to model observations for all phenomeon for which we still lack answers. For example, one of the last unsolved problems remaining in classical mechanics is a theory of turbulence. We still cannot sufficiently model this phenomenon nor provide a theoretical framework that serves as a useful mechanism for explaining and predicting complex phenomenon such as turbulence and almost all other non-linear phenomenon. A TOE that unifies fundamental interactions will do nothing to shed light on this behavior.

A TOE will not explain unsolved problems in biological systems, the origin of life, or brain functions and structure. A TOE will not explain social dyanmics or the structure and function of the world economy.

In short, the phrase 'Theory of Everything' is a misnomer. It will actually be a theory of limited scope as it will have very limited heuristic or pragmatic value for the vast majority of those in the scientific community.

I have not used the words 'Theory of Everything'. That is because in-so-far as theoretical physics is concerned it would only represent unification of mechanical knowledge. Theoretical physics has nothing to do with predicting or explaining intelligent life. Yes there will remain complex problems for which I cannot insist that we will ever be able to solve especially if we are not able to detail its data. My point has to do with fundamental unity. That means that there should be one cause at the beginning of theory and it should remain the only cause as further theory is developed. Since we do not have a fundamentally unified theory neither you nor I know clearly what we may expect from it. It may be the case that currently formidable complexity will remain complex but maybe not formidable. Anyway, throwing up a theoretical fogscreen is not a deterrent to pursuing a fundamentally unified theory. The disunity begins long before the fog is generated. It begins with f=ma.

Immerse a smooth aerodynamic object in a fluid, whether the fluid is made of liquid or gas, At low(relative) velocities, smooth Laminar flow occurs around the boundary of the object. The steamlines are well-behaved and pressure gradients are linear.

Increase the velocity beyond a certain limiting value and the pressure gradients become non-linear, turbulent and chaotic.

For a given manifold, experimenters can determine the parameters but nobody has been able to come up with a theory to explain or predict the boundary layer between turbulent and laminar flow.

Why does this behavior of the fluid happen with the specific values determined from experiment? The answer is, nobody knows. We know the phenomenon exists and we can predict and model the behavior for many systems based on the existing theory of fluids and experimetal values. However, no fundamental theory for the phenomenon of turbulence exists. Our theoretical explanations are rather limited.

Appealing to fundamental unified laws of nature will do nothing to help us here. A complete and consistent theory for the observed phenomenon of turbulence has yet to be constructred.

Many such problems exist. Science and Physics represent much more than searching for fudamental unifications of Physical laws. Science will not stop and most of the currently unanswered questions will remain unsolved when and if a unification occurs. Such a theory will be of very limited value in a serach for a complete understanding of all observed phenomenon.

"Science and Physics represent much more than searching for fudamental unifications of Physical laws. Science will not stop and most of the currently unanswered questions will remain unsolved when and if a unification occurs. ..."

This may very well be true. And, it is also very likely that I will not be the one who can help to solve such a problem.

"Such a theory will be of very limited value in a serach for a complete understanding of all observed phenomenon."

This, I say, is incorrect. Understanding is advanced greatly by removing guesses and inventions of the mind. Perhaps sometime you will consider reading my essay in the first essay contest and witness what can happen to something as fundamentally important as is electric charge. I make the case in an abrupt manner, but that is part of being limited to ten pages. For justification, I rely upon the results that I present. As I mentioned to you in a message above, those results include the necessary corrections to Maxwell's equations.

Maybe this thread has ended and maybe not. But just in case it has I will post what I think is, and have used as, the necessary first step in correcting physics theory:

I believe that theory went wrong right from the start when it chose to make mass an indefinable property. Neither force nor mass can be indefinable except by arbitrary interference by the theorist. Both must be definable in terms of distance and time the properties of their empirical evidence. After that act there is no way for the rest of theory to remain the same.

I have already explained you the determinism, but apparently it's not your choice.You prefert The Bell' ideas and these violations where the rationalities disappear.I don't understand you , you are skilling thus why? The scales are in 3D and a time constant.This evidence is universal. I think really that the real error is the confusion with computing and on the other side the realism.

The observations are always in 3D and a 4D relativistic space time due to evolution. The nature shows us the truths by our contemplations of the 3D creations. We aren't on Earth to travel in time but for an improvement, an optimization of the present and its locality, that permits to harmonize the globality.The realism is the sister of the pure objectivity where the determinism is a child of evidence.A theory is an essay to arrive at the best rationalities, of course many theories are jokes or pseudo sciences.But sometimes theories explain the natural phenom.....sometimes they try and they do not arrive simply.As what the foundamentals shall be always the best road.

Yes there are reals these scales ....we can calculate the distance between a star and a central quantum sphere or between this central sphere and the last spheres of the entanglement....all scales are in 3D.We need just to evolve towards the Planck Scales.We can also calculate the distance between the center of our UNIVEERSE and the limits differenciating the unknown and the physicality.The numbers rest reals.And the uniqueness possesses a finite number of decreasing volumes.This number seems the same(quant.and cosm.).

There is no center to a four dimension expanding universe. We measure over the three dimension manifold, which is a two dimension surface. My point is, though, we can also calculate the measured relations among spheres in higher dimensions. This seems strange to the uninitiated, but mathematicians do it routinely. If one gets hung up on what is "real," the underlying reality -- the reality not affected by physical conditions at any scale of observation -- seems inaccesible to physical theory. It isn't inaccessible, though -- we often determine facts by indirect observation, such as the experiments that verified atomic theory.

1 I think that the expansion is a step with a specific dynamic and after an unique contraction towards the perfect equilibrium between spheres(quant and cosm)

2 all possesses a center and in logic our universe as our quantum uniqueness also.

3 indeed if the 4d evolution is inserted , the classment of the evolving universal sphere is relevant but don't forget that the time rests constant in its locality and present.The higher dimensions do not exist simply.We calculate just our evolution and its variables 3D volumes in a 4D relativistic space time.That can be very relevant if you use a pure rational Occham Razor for the fractalization newtonian and the gravitational correlation.The rotations are the keys ....see the informations from the main central sphere, quantor cosm...see the BB and you shall see the central sphere......the ask is where is this center and where are we at this momment and what is the volume of the universal sphere and the 4D volumes(it is not extradimensions but a clamment of evolution), are we still in the expansion or are we already in the contraction, after all we see our past.....

I don't think it matters whether we are in the past or future, because there is no preferred inertial frame (that is, one is in someone else's past or future, according to the position of the light cones, and vice versa). The universe is postively expanding, though, because we observe it to be so. General relativity predicts it to be so, if the cosmological constant (lambda) is zero. That lambda may not be exactly zero is a subject of current research.

Sure, one can always identify an arbitrary center to a 3 dimension world -- but the expanding 2 dimension surface on which we live is finite only in time. The spatial surface is unbounded. No center.

One might imagine that the 3 dimension universe is rotating. Rotating in relation to what, however? There is no way one would know, otherwise, without such a relation. So when you say, "rotation is the key," you also have to consider that a sphere kissing model in n-dimension Euclidean space meets your criteria. That is what Ray Munroe has been trying to tell you all along. Extra dimensions aren't irrational; they are a useful tool in physical modeling, for quite sound technical reasons.

2 the rotations of spheres are the key,....and the volumes are specifics for the entanglement as the pure cosmological number.It's totally different.

3 The kissing model and the n dimensions are far of the reality but it's interesting, you know I am ok for all rational and deterministic convergences if and only if our pure rationalities are respected.The extradimensions, the strings, the ...aren't foundamental in the whole.Furthermore if it's used for some simulations, as a tool, that must respect still our pure rationalities.

4 I insist also about the expansion/constraction dynamic in a closed evolutive 3D spherical.This dynamic is unique in its pure oscillation,1exp 1 contr....thus a maximum volume and after the contraction.The expansion is not infinite and furthermore never the relativity says that at my knowledge.

5 if the rotations are universaly linked, thus of course the universal sphere doesn't turn........see the maximum for the gauge of light in an other main sense of rotation differenciating the gravitational stability.of course it is a pure thermodynamical link....cooling proportional with rotating spheres .....see the volumes....and the pression appears as the temperature.

It's what the theory says, it's what the solutions to the equations show.

So far as the extra dimensions go -- these are products of the extension of the relativistic model into quantum field theory.

If one wishes to stay in the Euclidean space (I do), which is the "real" domain that you want, one benefits from a kissing sphere model that can show that the string action (which originates in hyperbolic space by the convention of string theory) projects over n-dimensional spherical manifolds as a least action move of time, so that the time metric is a continuous asymptote to length 1 -- which represents the total energy of the universe.

Perhaps your expansion/contraction, rotation symmetries and thermodynamics comport with my results -- I don't know and can't determine. There is usually more than one way to describe the same phenomenon. Only in mathematical language, however, can we capture the true result. And if different mathematics are used, the problem of translation is a lot tougher than French to English or vice versa..

It is not my relativistic point of vue, but of course it's your choice and I am respecting it,you see I evolve I am more quiet and less parano hihihi.

You know all roads do not go to Roma. THUS A PURE RATIONAL SORTING IS NECESSARY.If not the convergences aren't reals simply.I d like say you that I like maths as you, I think it's a very good tool. But when we want explain the pure realism, objective and rational, some laws must be respected.

Let's take the cantor sets, that has no sense interpretating the infinity. Let's take the higgs and their external cause of mass, that has no sense. Let's take the strings in computing, I can agree that some ideas about oscillations are relevant, or some correlations with a the duality wave particule are relevant but please don't confound a computer and our universe. The computer has been created by humans, the universe no.The strings are a beautiful 2D system permetting the pictures but for our universe the spheres are rational....if now a pure deterministic correlation is made between the rational strings and the reality in 3D ....for the quantization of gravity for example...it's there very relevant and probably some deterministic convergences can be found...the ideas of Vladimir are relevant for the real quantization of all mass systems and its entangled spheres and their specific rotations spinals and orbitals...considering always the uniqueness of these universal systems...thus a finite number!more rotations proportional with mass and more a different sense of rotation for hv and without Rotation for space .....3 systems purely the same in BEC for example or an other mind extrapolation due to the zero absolute and the no rotation...see thus that all is space and light and mass ....if we insert the spherical universal topology...wawwwww we can thus change space in mass or light and thus we decreases this space in logic, what do you think dear Tom.....it's fascinating if we reencode the codes of gravity after a travel inside our universal 3D sphere. We change gravity in light and we change space in mass thus we go at the light speed in a shorter distance between two cosmological spheres...revolutionary , in logic it's possible in my humble line of reasoning,but for the gravity the number is probably different or the volumes than for light and space, it's logic due to the polarization of evolution and the increase of mass.

Conclusion it's better to travel in space than trying to travel in time.The relativity is that also ...energy mass light and space....purely linked.

Even though I don't understand all that you are getting at, I appreciate that your ideas are based in real numbers and 3 real dimensions. Mine are based in analysis. I am on the mathematical side of your fellow French speaking (and my co-religionist) Jacques Hadamard: "Le plus court chemin entre deux vérités dans le domaine réel passe par le domaine complexe."

I think you'll find that even with complex dimensions, we get to the real truth of the matter. It might not be the only way, but it's proven remarkably effective so far. If it's not true that all roads lead to Rome, it's certainly true that more than one of them does.

Dear Tom, the complexs are under 3d , where have you seen that the complexs imply extradimensions for example? Me I am sorry but if you take the zeta function of Rieman and the primes , I am sorry to say you that only the sphere answers in 3D and only the reals are correct for the pure quantization or the fractalization newtonian of mass....the determinism.

What is your meromorphic complex analyze please and its real partitions?

Do you really respect the laws of convergences of Euler or Bernouilli or Riemann or Moebius...see that the sphere is the only answer and a sphere is in 3D, the quantum numbers as our cosmological number are purely linked in the sherical distribution respecting the 3D.It's foundamental for a real harmonious distribution inside a perfect balanced system.The real side of maths is by a rational road, not a superimposing without physical domains.

You can have only one road and improve the way in planting flowers for example :):)...all roads you say , perhaps or perhaps no....

If I take the 0 and the 1 and if we insert the complexs for an analyze appraoched.....where have you seen extradimensions ??? ME I SEE ONLY AN IMROVEMENT IN THE REALS....have we the same definition of maths, I consider them as tools, good and important,on the other side you consider them above physics as the most foundamental thing, we differ on this point.The maths are a human invention as computer,the universe and its physics are universal and foundamental.It's totally different. SIMPLY PHYSICS BEFORE...MATHS AFTER!!! and still if and only if they converge those maths.

Complexs dimensions are just an imrpovement towards our walls, planck scales. And they rest in 3D as all scales , cosm. or quant.....you can't change this evidence.

One has to construct a coherent argument, by citing theorems and writing proofs to support. One can't act like a priest extolling doctrine.

Mathematicians routinely add and manipulate dimensions to make more room for calculating results beyond what they have. When physicists get hold of them, they connect the mathematical results to physical results. This is what happened with Einstein picking up Riemannian geometry, which is basically the Pythagorean theorem written in four dimensions. Einstein also allowed that adding more dimensions is perfectly legitimate physics, so long as one has good physical reasons to prefer them.

Tom it's interesting, I search still your equations, here is mine....2 even ....mvV COSNTANT FOR ALL PHYSICAL SPHERES......E=(c²o²s²)m...see what that means about the light and its velocities...linear,spinal, and orbital.....

To you.... Tom I wait your equations.....

Don't forget to drink a beer from belgium ......

ps I think some peopple confounds the irrational maths and the rational physics, but it is just a suggestion of course.Sometimes I say me who you try to convince in fact.At my humble opinion, the pseudo part of the sciences community but be sure not the rationalists and foundamentalists.

ps don't confound the 4D relativistic space time of evolution and its 4 dimensions where infact it exists 3 dimensions.....and these pseudos extrapolations ......these extradimensions aren't reals ...the complexs are under the 3D law.....if you fractalize your analyze correlated with the zeta function....that rests in 3D .....see the thermodynamics .

I have reread your posts about the universe and its rotation, don't forget in my line of reasoning that the universal sphere doesn't turn, it's logic because it's the otehr gauge for the rotations.Don't forget that they turn all inside, that doesn't mean that the universal sphere turns. On the otehr side, this universal sphere possesses a kind of membran separating the unknow and the pure deterministic physicality and its real distribution R+.The P and V more the relativistic evolutive constant of time and the cooling of distribution are very relevant if we consider a central sphere inside the universal sphere. You know all is and will rest in 3D , it's essential for a pure duration due to rotations and a pure logic of motions.That must rest as that for a real perception of creations.You know Tom, I have read many rational books,and never I saw these extradimensions in serious book.For example in my book of maths, I can enumerate many things, but never I saw extradimensions and these utilizations of complexs as that. Never in a book of Astronomy or physics I have studied or seen or read these extradimensions.In my books of biology and chemistry, it is the same Tom. I can say you how acts a flower and its system of photosynthesis or what is a karoten, but I don't see extradimension or external cause of mass as higgs.No I see a result of evolution with specific properties in time and space coordonates.When I test my composting with CH4 and bacterias or matters C/N I see a pure 3D thermodynamic and a production of E. It's always the same in all human experiments Tom, and when I use a serie as Fourier and its harmonic oscillation, it's for a pure deterministic road. Never I will explain how acts a star or how grows a plant with the extradimensions or these reversibilities of Time.Let's be rational, all natural sciences are as that. If you want explain the universe, it's the same an always the same universal 3D dynamic.

When I see a water drop Tom, still a sphere, I see the heart of a moon or the flower of a beautiful passiflora caerulea.

If you use the complexs as that, that decreases your velocity of understanding of the 3D and its contemplations simply. You know the biology is fascinating. When I extrapolate rationally a torus of Adn and its entangled spheres, I see a system in 3D of polarization of evolution between hv and m.The volumes Tom the volumes.If I use a maths method, it is always for a better understanding of our systems around.Frankly with these extradimensions and others ironies, I don't see a rational tool. It's more a tool of confusion at my humble opinion.

:) you are incredible as Lawrence and Ray. Me also I will try sometimes TO MAKE UNDERSTANDING TO YOU for a real deterministic road for YOUR maths.HIHIHIH The finite groups Tom and the domains of reference in 3D....if not the rotations spinals and orbitals of volumes aren't universally consistent and PROPORTIONAL WITH MASS.It is all our proportionalities which are under these 3D dynamic. IF YOU INSERT NOW A SENSE DIFFERENT OF ROTATION FOR m AND hv...you sghall see the unification in 3D of 4 forces....ps eureka ....humbly of course.

Theory presently interferes with understanding the nature of the universe. Not in all ways. Plus, theory certainly has appeared to be very useful. But, there is a major mistake that pervades all of theory. That mistake causes theory to misrepresent the properties of the universe. So, we end up with theoretical inventions and appear to remain stuck with them unless we pursue removing that major mistake. So, theory must return to f=ma and get it right. The problem is with the units. The units must reflect nature's data. They must be firmly anchored to that data. They must be expressible in the units of that data. The reason the units are crucial and cannot be played around with is because that is the way that theory becomes a part of the equations. The names given to properties matter only to our ears. The equations know only numbers and units. Units must be correct right from the start and they must always balance. Most importantly, it can be done. However, it has not been done.

"The panspermia idea is of course somewhat silly. It does not really solve the problem of how self-organizing organic chemistry produced life. All panspermia does is to shove the problem to somewhere else. It really solves nothing, and frankly I think it is very unlikely that biology on this planet dropped out of the sky from somewhere else. "

You mentioned what seemed to be likely to you but what we think is likely can be biased by our perspectives. Because we only know of life on this planet so far we assume that the most likely explanation is that life started here from scratch. We have no working model to explain that and the timescale is very short. It seems much more likely to me that life abounds throughout the universe and came here and took root on the early earth.

Welcome: While I know that Dr. Crowell can speak much better for himself, I think I will step in here. I am certain the Dr. Crowell and probably almost anyone else would not suggest that life exists only here on earth. The point is whether or not our life had its origins on this planet.

We simply don't know how prevalent life is in the Cosmos. Anyone who says they do know is fooling themselves. Without observational evidence to back up our assertions and claims, we end up with a free-for-all of speculations and opinions.

Most of the arguments for an abundance of life in the cosmos(and especially intelligent life) stem from personal incredulity -- e.g. "I find it hard to believe that we are the only example of intelligent life in the Universe."

Such arguments are appealing but we must remember that our Intuition and instinct is often at odds with reality. Anyone can just as easily appeal to intuition and incredulity and proclaim, "I find it hard to believe that a measurement of time is relative or 'bits' of matter can behave like a particle and a wave at the same time. "

Sometimes our intuition serves us well. Often, however, it lets us down big time. It's not that we should be afraid of holding opinions or speculating. We just need to be careful about confusing opinions with facts. Intuition and speculation is no substitute for empirical evidence when it comes to making declarations of fact.

I prefer to appeal to the Copernican Principle on such matters. Since there is nothing special about our location and we hold no unique or privileged position in the Cosmos, I see no reason to assume that organic life, in some for or another, does not exist at other times and places. As to the abundance of life in the Cosmos--Past, present, and Future -- , this question is currently so far beyond our ability to test that I won't even speculate. Assuming life does exist elsewhere, are we a representative sample of Life in the Cosmos or a statistical oddity? Again, I have no idea.

You wrote, "Every effect that occurs as a result of the origin of the universe has to be due to the properties that have existed from its beginning."

In the first place, why? In the second place, how does one know that?

"I do not allow for latter miracles to be snuck in either in favor of religious beliefs or in fear of religious beliefs."

So for you the miracle is continuous rather than discrete. Right?

"Have you yet figured out how we discern meaning from the photon storm that crashes into us at the speed of light?"

If you actually did read my essay, you know that I allowed that events (information) discretely encoded and processed in brain mechanics have an evolutionary advantage over continuous experience, because discrete categorization facilitates rational choices ("loaded dice"). So yes, we (not I, but scientists studying evolution and consciousness) have figured out how we "discern meaning from the photon storm."

"You wrote, "Every effect that occurs as a result of the origin of the universe has to be due to the properties that have existed from its beginning.""

"In the first place, why? In the second place, how does one know that?"

Because one thing leads to another. That means that there is always a dependent connection from the one to the other. Nothing gets snuck in as you try to do below.

"If you actually did read my essay, you know that I allowed that events (information) discretely encoded and processed in brain mechanics have an evolutionary advantage over continuous experience, because discrete categorization facilitates rational choices ("loaded dice"). So yes, we (not I, but scientists studying evolution and consciousness) have figured out how we "discern meaning from the photon storm.""

Evolutionary advantages is an after-effect. You keep resorting to effects and claim to be explaining cause. No one knows how we "discern meaning from the photon storm." That is because no meaning can be attached to it that is not already available to be attached to it. The meaning exist at our disposal before the information arrives or it is impossible to make sense of it. Your "loaded dice" are loaded answers. It is the "load' and its origin that must be explained. You cannot start with an effect.

All physics starts with an effect (i.e., the observed change in position among mass points). While I agree with you that meaning precedes construction, to presume a cause obviates construction of a physical explanation (theory), and replaces it with belief. Assign whatever value you want to it, but it isn't science.

When you say "While I agree with you that meaning precedes construction, to presume a cause obviates construction of a physical explanation (theory), and replaces it with belief."

You are saying that an explanation either fits with physics theory or it is a belief. Neither life nor intelligence fit with physics theory. Neither of them are beliefs. They must have a cause. Meaning itself must have a cause. If you wish to give physics theory the credit, then, what is the physics cause for meaning? By the way, physics theory is substantially based upon belief. Certainly its substitutes for cause are beliefs.

You wrote, "You are saying that an explanation either fits with physics theory or it is a belief."

That is correct.

A theory IS an explanation. It's the only means we have to interpret physical phenomena. If one simply believes something and can't explain it, that's not science.

Meaning, OTOH, precedes the explanation because it presumes the language in which the meaning will be contained, even if the language cannot contain ALL the meaning -- the language is finite while the meaning may be infnite.

I am not a believer. However, I am also not one of those who think "spiritual" is the opposite of "scientific." There are many things about the universe of which I am in awe and for which I have no explanation. They are not topics for science, however, and that is what my dialogue with you has been about all along -- your trying to fit all meaning into the box called science. One can't do that. Einstein made a point of saying that one can accurately and exhaustively describe a symphony as variations in sound wave pressure. That hardly captures the meaning of a symphony, does it?

You: "A theory IS an explanation. It's the only means we have to interpret physical phenomena. If one simply believes something and can't explain it, that's not science."

Actually, you do not need a theory. But, it requires at least two important corrections for physicists. One is to recognize that equations represent initial conditions changed into final conditions, meaning that cause should not be represented on either the right side or the left side of such an equation. The cause is hidden underneath the equals sign. Let go of inventing artificial cause, work with effects and theory is not needed. The second is that all properties shown in equations should be representable in combinations of the same units of the empirical evidence from which they were discerned. Let go of invented units, use only empirical units and the equations remain free of theoretical intrusions.

You: "your trying to fit all meaning into the box called science. One can't do that. Einstein made a point of saying that one can accurately and exhaustively describe a symphony as variations in sound wave pressure. That hardly captures the meaning of a symphony, does it?"

Your point is well taken, so, I should be clear on this point. I can't fit meaning into a box. Actually I can't fit the origin of the universe into that box either. My point has to do with both being mysteries that are complete in themselves. What I mean is that they must be fully existent in either potential form and/or realized form right from their beginnings. Actually, I consider them to be the same problem.

One more thing. I have been thinking lately that it is time again to thank you for your participation here. You have been very active in the blogs section. Your presence contributes greatly to maintaining a higher level of quality than would otherwise be the case.

Yes I understand that. It seems more reasonable to me to conjecture that life, if it exists throughout the universe, does not evolve independently from scratch in multiple locations but evolved in the early universe and seeded the rest of it over time. I would not dogmatically say that but only that seems more reasonable. Life could have started from scratch on this planet but frankly we just don't know so we should not take a position that it did as dogma. We should leave it as an open question. I don't think it is considered as an open question.

It doesn't matter if there are 300 sextillion stars. We only know of one planet with life (Earth), and the sampling error in 1 is 1=SQRT(1), so our sampling uncertainty is 100%.

You mentioned Gary Hart. Donna Rice (Hughes) (the scandal that really ended Hart's Presidential run) and I were in the same 1st grade class together at Ruediger Elementary School in Tallahassee back in 1964. We both moved away, but I ended up coming back home.

You mentioned the "Life on Mars" meteorite. I was performing Cosmic Ray research at Marshall Space Flight Center when that controversy arose.

MSFC was an interesting place. I had to go through Army security checkpoints to get on campus. I performed computer simulations (sometimes we theorists become specialized programmers - it usually pays better than teaching) for their Cosmic Ray research program - the Scintillating Optical Fiber CALorimeter (SOFCAL), that eventually became NASA's backup plan for an ISS Cosmic Ray experiment. My office was at the same end of the building as some of the Astrobiologists, so I heard some of this "Life on Mars" controversy first-hand back in the 90's.

Really - Donna Rice (Hughes) was in my 1st grade class - I have a class photo to prove it. You were very young in 1987, and I think that most people have long since forgotten about Gary Hart and why his Presidential run ended, but you can Wikipedia either name for more historical information.

The argument for the existence of biologically active planets is based on a Copernican Principle (CP). This CP says that the structure of the universe has no uniqueness that depends on any region or “geography.” For physics this means there are quantities that are invariant in some way, and others which are covariant that transform in certain ways by certain symmetries. When it comes to astronomical structures it means that the occurrence of structures is repeated with some frequency throughout the universe. Galaxies tend to have an average structure and occurrence on a large enough scale. Stars of various HR classification tend to occur with a regular frequency. We are now getting data on the occurrence of extra-solar systems of planets. The CP seems to be operating there as well.

Based on some chaos theory in mechanics and the emerging data at the time I computed that there should exist about 1000 planets in our galaxy, and within comparable galaxies, which are in an orbital configuration similar to Earth. These planets might then have sufficient energy flow and complexity to permit not only life, but complex life. I think there may be millions of planets which permit prokaryotic level of life. Mars might in fact have permitted the pre-biotic chemical evolution of such life and may indeed harbor such life in its soil.

It is possible that space based interferometers will be able to image terrestrial types of planets out to 1000 light years. Currently the Kepler telescopic spacecraft is finding signatures of planets in the Perseus arm of the Milky Way galaxy. The planet count topped 500 recently. In a few decades we may actually be able to image them, and measure chemical signatures from the atmospheres and surfaces of these planets. We might get signatures of life.

Currently we do have no knowledge of astrobiology. However, arguments can be made which give plausible support for a conjecture that such exist. It is strong enough that the search for life in the rest of the universe is sufficiently compelling.

That implies of course that all can be quantized rationally. The road of real numbers+ is deterministic for the quantum number and the cosmological number. A finite number for the ultim entanglement is essential, and this for a correct quantization of mass on this line of evolution time(and its increase of mass and entropy.).

If we analyze the adenin or others amino acids, we see the HCNO which dance in a pure spherical stabilization.You can see the closed spherical system and their kind of aromatics as benzen....We can extrapolate this 3D system with a correct fractal towards the wall.That means many things those stabilized spherical systems as tori of adn or mitosis or this and that,the biology is an ocean of sphericality if I can say. That means that the mass continues to polarize light with a kind of pure fractalization of hv and its same number.The sortings and synchro by rotating spherical volumes are evident .We can extrapolate with evolution as always and the stimuli by environments.All that is purely rational in its geometrical and structural complexification. That implies that the codes are intrinsic in the gravitational stabilities and its diversity.The spheres and the spherical stability is the only solution for a correct quantization of evolutive mass.....If these rotations of spheres were not a reality, we were not a reality simply.

News: the professor John W.Milnor won the abel prize of maths for the 7 exotic spheres.Congratulation Stony Brook University and dear professor.Apparently Prof. Perelman and his discovery is linked also with sphere.I am happy for them, it's well.They won a big prize.2X 1 millions wawww it's not nothing that.Me and my 600euros /months of course is